Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.
Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.
What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?
What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?
His hypothesis is unfalsifiable....there is no evidence that would convince him it is wrong.
So, quite the ramble. But, are we clear?
1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
2) Neither you nor I are climate scientists; we have no models; we have
no predictions
3) I believe the world's ice is melting because the Earth is getting
warmer and that it is getting warmer primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.
What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.
Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.
What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?
How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
Stop repeating this god damned lie!!!
Then show how they're wrong.
Then show how they're wrong.
He just did. For someone who claims to read everything, it's interesting that you don't seem to have read anything here. Not Abe's post, not my link, both of which debunked SSDD's conspiracy theory.
You're also failing on "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" grounds. When someone makes a claim that all CO2 measurements on the planet have been totally wrong for decades running, that's an extraordinary claim. SSDD provided no evidence at all for that claim, other than his unsourced graphs. And instead of being a genuine skeptic and demanding extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claims, you accepted his conspiracy at face value and ignored the previous debunkings of it.
In other words, it was the usual denialist failure at being skeptical. All the actual skeptics are on the other side.
This is not a correlation. This is a known causation, directly measurable as the process happens, much like gravity causing an object to fall. CO2 builds up near the ground under an inversion layer at night, then the winds and heating of the day destroy the inversion layer and disperse the extra CO2. A plot of half-hourly measurements shows it more clearly.
At this point, you can say "yep, you're right", or you can stick with SSDD's "Mainstream science is all wrong, and these are the real CO2 measurements!" theory. If that's the case, I'll start asking you to explain the details of it. Such as the physical mechanism that would cause CO2 levels of the whole atmosphere to fluctuate by 100 ppm in less than 1 hour.
And what do you think that shows?
Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.
What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?
How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.
Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect?
I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor.
As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.
"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
This is not a correlation. This is a known causation, directly measurable as the process happens, much like gravity causing an object to fall. CO2 builds up near the ground under an inversion layer at night, then the winds and heating of the day destroy the inversion layer and disperse the extra CO2. A plot of half-hourly measurements shows it more clearly.
At this point, you can say "yep, you're right", or you can stick with SSDD's "Mainstream science is all wrong, and these are the real CO2 measurements!" theory. If that's the case, I'll start asking you to explain the details of it. Such as the physical mechanism that would cause CO2 levels of the whole atmosphere to fluctuate by 100 ppm in less than 1 hour.
And what do you think that shows?
I had learned that the most effective way to counteract my parents' crushing demands of me was to reject any effort to be smart.
How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.
Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect?
Where you say "CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything."
I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor.
Not in this instance you didn't. You said "CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything."
As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.
"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
It is difficult not to get exasperated.
That CO2 comes out of solution when temperatures rise is not contested. HOWEVER, that that happens has NOTHING to do with the FACT that CO2 absorbs infrared and its presence in the atmosphere will raise the Earth's temperature. THAT IS THE FUCKING GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Your argument is akin to saying "water boils, therefore it cannot freeze".
CO2 is so small a player...barely registers on our best instruments.
it is impossible for CO2 to have any measureable effect.
